[1009] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 41.—These irregularities were not of recent introduction. The canon referred to is copied almost literally from a synod held nearly forty years before by Bishop Henning. In fact, from the description given by the latter of the drinking, gambling, trading, and licentiousness of the ecclesiastics of Camin, there was little of the clerical character about them.—Synod. Camin. ann. 1454 (Hartzheim V. 930).
[1010] Wiæ Hist. Episc. Camin. c. 42.—Synod. Sedinens. c. 5.
In West Prussia, in 1497, the synod of Ermeland expresses itself as scandalized by the priests taking their companions publicly to fairs and other gatherings, and, to put a stop to the practice, it offers to secret informers one-half of the fine imposed on such indiscretions.—Synod. Warmiens. ann. 1497 c. xxxix. (Hartzheim V. 668).
[1011] Boissen Chron. Slesvicens. ann. 1494.
[1012] Robles, Vida del Card. Ximenes de Cisneros, cap. xii., xiii.—Robles was chaplain to Ximenes, and presumably derived his information from the cardinal himself.
[1013] Rursus in certis monasteriis dicti ordinis, ipsæ moniales apertis claustris, indifferenter omnes homines etiam suspectos intromittunt, ac extra monasteria in curiis, castris et plateis vagantes, plura scandala committunt.... Similiter religiosi qui in sacris ordinibus constituti non sunt, relicto habito regulari, matrimonium contrahere dicuntur.... Præterea omnes et singulos monachos et moniales regulam S. Benedicti hujusmodi expresse vel tacite professos, qui habitum monasticum sine dispensatione legitima reliquerunt aut matrimonia contraxerunt, ad monasteria, si illa exiverunt, redire et habitum monasticum ac velum nigrum reassumere dicta auctoritate compellatis.—App. ad Chron. Cassinens. Ed. Dubreul, pp. 902-3.
The words italicized would seem to indicate that monks and nuns occasionally married without even quitting their monasteries.
[1014] Perrens, Jérome Savonarole, p. 84.
[1015] Statut. Ord. Cisterc. ann. 1516 (Martene Thesaur. IV. 1636-7).
[1016] Thus, in 1193, the general chapter of the order promulgated the rule—“Si contigerit mulieres abbatiam ordinis nostri ex consensu intrare, ipse abbas a patre abbate deponatur absque retractatione. Et quicumque sine conscientia abbatis introduxerit, de domo ejiciatur, non reversurus, nisi per generale capitulum.”—(Capit. General. Cisterc. ann. 1193 cap. 6—apud Martene Thesaur. IV. 1276.) The strictness with which this was enforced is illustrated by the proceedings in 1205 against the abbot of the celebrated house of Pontigny, because he had allowed the Queen of France and her train to be present at a sermon in the chapel and a procession in the cloisters, and to spend two nights in the infirmary. He adduced in his defence a special rescript of the pope and a permission from the head of the order in favor of the queen, but these were pronounced insufficient, and sentence was passed that he merited instant deposition “quia tam enorme factum sustinuit, in totius ordinis injuriam,” but that in consequence of the powerful intercession of the Archbishop of Rheims and other bishops, he was allowed to escape with lighter punishment.—(Hist. Monast. Pontiniac.—Martene Thesaur. III. 1245.)